Language desk
< February 28	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 29

Proofread some Japanese, please.

Resolved

In this article: Subject Object Verb

私は箱を開けます。is transliterated as "watashi wa hako o akemasu."

Should that not be "watashi wa hako to akemasu"?

を = to

I do not speak Japanese, but I am studying it. I fixed it [1], but then I reverted myself because I thought I might be wrong because the person made the same mistake twice. Plus, with all of the Japanophiles on Wikipedia, this kind of a mistake is not likely. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O is correct. It "o" when it is is a particle. See Japanese_grammar#Objects.2C_locatives.2C_instrumentals:_.E3.82.92_.28o.29.2C_.E3.81.AB_.28ni.29.2C_.E3.81.A7_.28de.29.2C_.E3.81.B8_.28e.29.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Also see Wo (kana). I don't think it's ever to. See hirigana.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I misread it. I mistook を for と.

Sorry! Thanks! ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Sentence

Hi guys, just wondering which of these is correct:

“Train’s the way to go,” said Bob.

OR

“Train’s the way to go”, said Bob.

Thanks 58.168.63.181 (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first way is the correct American way, and the second way is the correct British way. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; the second is not correct in UK English. Gwinva (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British and US usage differ when the quote finishes the sentence.

UK: Bob said "Train's the way to go".
USA: Bob said "Train's the way to go."

But where the quote ends in mid-sentence, they actually speak the same language. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on that last US version, it should be: Bob said, "Train's the way to go." Don't forget the comma after said. Useight (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comma's needed in British English as well! Bazza (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically there are two styles of placing other punctuation marks with quotation marks. What people here are calling the American style places commas and periods before the closing quote. Other punctuation marks take their logical position according to whether they belong to the quoted text. This is the style I was taught as the only correct style when I was in school in Canada. What people are calling the British style places all marks in their logical position (although if there would logically be punctuation both before and after a closing quote, in most cases only one of the two marks is used). This is the preferred style for Wikipedia articles and where the other style might cause confusion. See Quotation marks#Typographical considerations for discussion and WP:MOS#Quotation marks regarding Wikipedia style. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, February 29, 2008.

Could Gwinva or some other British English user answer the following question: Are you saying that "Train's the way to go," said Bob. is the correct way to punctuate that direct quote in British English (as opposed to "Train's the way to go", said Bob.)? Or are you saying that the word order or the omission of the definite article is incorrect? The omission of the definite article would be nonstandard in American English, but I didn't comment on that because I thought that the questioner was asking about punctuation. Surely the word order, with said Bob at the end of the sentence, is permissible in British English, as it is in American English? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Train’s the way to go,” said Bob. is correct in UK usage. SaundersW (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go further,and demonstrate UK English in various constructs:

"Train's the way to go," said Bob.
Bob said, "Train's the way to go." or

Bob said: "Train's the way to go." or

Bob said "Train's the way to go."

Depending on the emphasis/context. The first is standard for dialogue. The second uses a colon for the usual colon reasons (although some authors use it at a literary technique), and the third is for reporting direct speech in prose. Note, this is direct speech so the punctuation is inside the quotes. See later for indirect speech. Jack's comment above was not clear on context, but this is correct for direct speech

Bob said "Train's the way to go" in a very odd voice. or

Bob said, "Train's the way to go," in a very odd voice.

depending on which meaning you want (the first in prose, second in dialogue, although it's very clumsy grammatically).

"Don't go by car," Bob said. "Train's the way to go."
We know from Bob that "train's the way to go".

Indirect quote, so punctuation goes outside. No colon or comma before the quote, unless for other reasons, eg, bracketting:

Trains are, according to Bob, "the way to go".

Did Bob say, "Train's the way to go"? or

Did Bob say "Train's the way to go"?

Did Bob say, "Train's the way to go!"?

(Question mark outranks period but equal to exclamation; see archive for discussion of this)

The omission of the definite article is appropriate in colloquial speech, especially here where Bob is talking of all trains, generically, rather than on train specifically:

"You could go by train, but plane's best, really."
"I missed the train, and there wasn't another for twenty minutes."

Gwinva (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be repeated that Gwinva's ideas about what is correct British usage conflict with what other sources state. --Anonymous, 04:20 UTC, March 1, 2008.

Do they? I tried to show a broad and fair representation, but am quite happy to be proven wrong. Which ones have differing British standards? Gwinva (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation in English

My punctuation needs improvement. Does anyone know a reliable online resource listing rules or guidelines? (Not WP:PUNC, please). I know they vary and are elastic, but I'm just looking for one authoritative and consistent body. It doesn't matter from which side of the pond(s). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's my area. But I can't recommend any online resources that are as good as the many books I know. For general use, and as a source that we could well learn from here at Wikipedia, try [Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors]. Some American bias, but pretty damn good all the same. There's a Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style, but you might be better off with the first one I mention. A basically Chicago Manual of Style approach, but more friendly, readable, and refreshingly rational. (I say that as a veteran of the WT:MOS-wars.) There's also a much smaller but very serviceable sibling: [Merriam-Webster's Pocket Guide to Punctuation].

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as a lighter introduction to the subject, try Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss. Bazza (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions, Noetica and Bazza. I've always meant to borrow the Panda book from my sister one day, and will order one of the suggested hardcopies eventually. I guess I need an online version because I write (and edit) from all sorts of places, and would like to look things up when not at home too. Well, I suppose the pocket guide might fit in my coat pocket. Still, if anyone knows a reliable online version, I would be deeply gratified. I found a citation guide that looks alright, but I'm really looking for punctuation in general. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But note that American reviewers criticised Lynne Truss's punctuation, and the British will pale and tremble with rage and despair at the Merriam Webster/Chicago Manual requirements. NZers are generally with the British, and Australians frequently lapse towards the American. While it might not matter to you "which side of the pond", it might matter to those who read your work. So, whichever path you choose, be prepared to be burnt at the stake by some dogmatic pedant! :) Gwinva (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Gwinva. Many other suggestions could be made, of course. There are several rather good little guides – and several dreadful ones. None is complete, and it is rare to find one that does not contradict itself. Even New Hart's Rules does that. As for pondlike divides, such as the Tasman but writ larger, one could simply get a cheap little guide from each side, and compare where necessary.

The most thorough treatment of the apostrophe that I have seen anywhere is our own article. Same for the serial comma. Both should be read circumspectly, like everything else at WP; but editors do tend to watch over them pretty well, and weed out zealotry or inaccuracy.

Sluzzelin, if you enjoy windy diatribes about punctuation then do by all means read Truss. But you'll get precious little guidance. She does not even distinguish the kinds of dashes, as we do crisply and precisely at WP:PUNC (which remains faulty in other ways, of course). She says she only discovered how to input what she thinks of as a "proper" dash when someone happened to tell her, while she was putting her book together. Beyond that she shows no awareness of the issues that we address very clearly.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we are infinitely superior and should publish our own guide. Or Noetica should, at least. Never have I read a finer examination of "an" with "h" that the one produced by St Noetica the other day. However, I have one quibble. While the Atlantic might be a pond, I've always thought of the Tasman as a ditch. In fact, in order to prove my point I have even googled a fine selection of examples, particulary acrosstheditch.com which (to quote the site) exists "to promote inquiry into and discussion of the multi-dimensioned relationship between Australia and New Zealand"! But getting back to Sluzzelin's problem, RL Trask has written The Penguin Guide to Punctuation, which is a slim paperback, and presents examples and rules from both sides of the pond (and ditch). It is clear and concise and would stuff itself into a pocket or briefcase nicely. Gwinva (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are too kind, Gwinva. (Not that I'm complaining; and I am in awe of your knowledge of Medieval equestrialia.) I have examined Trask's little book. It is widely respected, and recommended in Butcher's Copy-editing. Some would deem that high praise. I remember noting some inadequacies in it, but I have been meaning to look through it again. I'll do that.

There is also How to Punctuate: Penguin Writer's Guide, by George Davidson (2005; 300pp.). That's longer, and very detailed. It gives coverage to American and British differences – with the em dash versus the en dash, for example. Davidson is much more readily available in bookshops, at least in Australia. I might compare these two Penguins when I have the opportunity, and report back here. Give me a few days.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that bit of praise, Noetica; it's all the more warming since I must deduce you followed my trail there... All quite accidental knowledge, really. Anyway, this isn't a mutual praise forum, so I shall cease wittering. Gwinva (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gwinva and Noetica, for those suggestions (and also for the entertainment; this place is so different from de:Wikipedia:Auskunft). Please note that I wasn't doubting its quality in any way when I said "no thanks" to WP:PUNC. By definition, Wikipedia's Manual of Style can't ever be stable, and I need unchanging text lest I get confused when re-iterating passages I already read. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I believe Humanities have discussed the German cultural differences by looking at literature; it seems they could have also looked at Reference desks! Gwinva (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Wording

'X and Y request the pleasure of your company in celebrating their marriage at...'

Is this a grammatically legitimate sentence? Can it be accepted in the context of an invite? 195.60.20.81 (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with it. It has all the elements a sentence requires, provided you finish with the location.

X and Y = subject
request = verb
the pleasure = object, of your company = prepositional phrase
in celebrating their marriage at... = prepositional phrases

—Dforest (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what does "in celebrating" modify? I sense conflation. We "take" pleasure "in" things, but we don't "request" pleasure "in" them. We "join" others "in" celebrating, but we don't request company "in" it. We have company "on" a trip or "for" an occasion. This reads to me like a failed attempt at elegant language. Don't ask me how to fix it, though. I'm far too plain-spoken for your mother-in-law-to-be. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can just say "to celebrate". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the construction in + <gerund> in English, in can mean "at the time of", "on the occasion of", or "by means of". For example, "We ask you to join us in celebrating our marriage." So this is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verb phrase request the pleasure of your company. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just define "in", the little words have to be used idiomatically. Your "join someone in something" is idiomatic, but our "request something in something" is not. And "X and Y request the pleasure of your company to celebrate their marriage at..." is no better. What does "to celebrate" belong to? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't 'belong' to anything. It looks to me to be a purpose clause (I'm thinking of Latin ut) which follows the request for company; i.e., We request the pleasure of your company with the purpose of celebrating our marriage. IMHO, the first sentence was fine too - I agree with Marcopolo's assessment, in+gerund (that's celebrating, a verbal noun) can indicate at the time of; the OED, among its very comprehensive definition of in, gives: "In the process of, in the act of; in case of: often equivalent in sense to a temporal clause introduced by when, while, if, in the event of." СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the most ferocious creature in the world?

The Panda.

Anyplace with Pandas will be pandamonium... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.6.248 (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this honour goes the the Drop Bear. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humans. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, forgot that one. I agree wholeheartedly. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it claimed the hippopotamus is the most dangerous herbivore. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where it occurs, the hippo is evidently the most dangerous mammal, in terms of the number of people killed. I'm not sure that's the same as 'ferocious'. And ferocious to their prey, to each other, or to passers by? kwami (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And though google's first hit when searching "the most ferocious creature in the world" suggests the piranha [2], the candirú "have a reputation among the natives as the most feared fish in its waters, even over the piranha" (referenced !) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The piranha is only ferocious once it gets started feeding. You can swim a meter over a school of them and they'll ignore you, unless you're injured. Or so I read years ago in a little book on piranha some Amazonian ichthyologist wrote after trying it out. The candiru may be feared, but I'd hardly call it ferocious. That has more to say about our fears over the vulnerability of our genitals than the behavior of the fish. Does 'most ferocious' mean most likely to prey on humans, or most likely to attack when disturbed? Lots of 'ferocious' animals, like moray eels, are quite gentle if you approach them right. There are some large squid that will attack humans readily enough, but at 2 meters I don't know how dangerous they are. In parts of the Rift Valley, elephant have taken to hunting people, evidently out of vengeance. People have to set up watch and flee camp if they hear them coming: They'll literally rip all your limbs off, and tenderize the rest. But for people who live in the open, lions and tigers are justifiably feared: they readily hunt humans for prey, not just vengeance or to protect their cubs.

They say that in Alaska, you should wear bells on your ankles so that you don't surprise a grizzly with cubs, and carry pepper spray just in case. Get them ready if you see grizzly scat. You can tell it's grizzly scat if it has little bells in it and smells like pepper. kwami (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon and cock

I can't find any of these interpretations in online dictionaries but am I mistaken in thinking that :

A typhoon can be a ship's fog horn.
A cock is the name for a ship's cook.

Thank you. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't confirm either of those, however "cock" has a few nautical meanings. A head ship was sometimes called the "cock-ship" (just as the leader of a group could be "cock of the school" etc), and the "cock" or "cock-boat" was a ship's small boat. There's also the "cox" or "coxswain" who controls the helm. Gwinva (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. I gave it my best shot in the OED, but no dice. That doesn't mean they don't mean those things, of course. That "typhoon" one especially rings a bell, and it will haunt me until that moment several years from now when I stumble across it, too late to do you any good. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does English have a nickname for the ship's cook? German has "Smutje", but I only found "SC" in one of the nautical glossaries I scanned. Interestingly, both the Foghorn and the Typhoon are cocktails a ship's cook might mix, when there is gin and lime juice at his disposition. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page describes a lightship as possessing "2 500mm lens lanterns, 15,000cp; air diaphragm horn (Leslie 17" typhoon) and AN/SPN-11 radar." A particular type of horn, perhaps? Deor (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Leslie, take a look at this. Oda Mari (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch word for the noun "cook" is kok – not just a ship's cook, but any cook. Also, coc is the Old English form of "cook". Perhaps there is some connection with the use of the word cock for a ship's cook. --Lambiam 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]